IMPROVEMENTS. (Hansard, 10 August 1883)

HL Deb 10 August 1883 vol 283 cc5-44 5

§ Compensation for Improvements.

§ Clause 1 (General right of tenant to compensation).

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
, in moving an Amendment to limit the right 6 of compensation to such improvements as were "suitable to the agricultural requirements of the holding," by inserting those words in the clause, said, the proposal was more than verbal. It was necessary to surround the concession to the tenant with every reasonable safeguard. It would be only fair, for example, to prevent drains being put in and paid for, and valued for, that were not required for the holding. It was well known that drainage of some lands would do more harm than good.

§ Amendment moved,

§ In page 1, line 9, after ("improvement") insert ("suitable to the agricultural requirements of the holding.")—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

§ LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)
said, he did not think that the Amendment was at all necessary; and, if adopted, it might give rise to costly disputes. He did not see how improvements not suitable to the holding could produce any result; and if they did not produce any result there could be no question of value, and the tenant could not receive any compensation for them.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
said, that they were addressing referees, who were not so acute as lawyers; and they ought to give those persons clearly and distinctly to understand that they were not to give the tenant something merely because he had spent a good deal of money. Therefore, he thought his Amendment would provide a safeguard; but he would not divide upon it.

§ LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)
said, that it might have been a very useful one in the Act of 1875; but they did not here make the outlay the standard, but the result.

§ Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON
said, that the clause allowed the improvements in the first two Farts of the Schedule to be estimated on the principle that the inherent capabilities of the soil were not to be taken into account as part of the improvement. He thought that principle should apply to the 3rd Part of the Schedule also; and he would, therefore, move an Amendment to that effect.

§ Amendment moved, in page 1, line 15, to leave out ("Parts I. and II. of.")—(The Duke of Richmond and Gordon.)

§ LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PREIDENT of the COUNCIL)
said, he did not believe that he differed in principle from the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon); but he had a considerable amount of objection to the extension to Part III. of the Proviso that what was justly due to the inherent capabilities of the soil was not to be taken into account as part of the improvement in estimating its value. It was originally confined to Part I., and then it was extended to Part II.; but he did not think it would be advisable to extend it to Part III., which would go beyond the intentions of those who introduced it in the other House. It was not originally in the Bill, but was avowedly introduced for the purpose of protecting the landlord against possible danger in the case of some of the greater improvements making a material and a permanent change in the condition of the holding. Cases were put such as that of the reclamation of a large tract which' might have been brought about by a comparatively small operation—for example, by the turning of a stream; and it was thought that without that Proviso and caution the valuers might fancy themselves required to give the tenant the whole of the increased value produced by that small operation. The result of the Amendment being carried would be seriously to embarrass the valuers, and might prevent them from giving the tenant that which he might be fairly entitled to. He did not believe landlords would gain by the extension of the Proviso to Part III.; and he must, on those grounds, adhere to the clause as it stood.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON
said, that as none of the improvements in Parts I. and II. could be carried on without the consent of the landlord he could then make his own terms; but, in the case of the 3rd Part of the Schedule, improvements could be done without his consent; and as he felt very strongly on the point, thinking the Proviso more necessary for Part III. than the other parts of the Schedule, he would take the opinion of their Lordships on his Amendment.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
said, the matter involved the whole question to whom the latent qualities of the soil were to belong—whether they were to belong to the landlord, as at present, or to be alienated to the tenant? A tenant might put a quantity of lime on the top of the clay, and the result might be an additional crop; but that additional crop was the result, not of the lime only, but of both the clay and the lime; and the tenant had no more right to the clay than the landlord had to the lime. Therefore there should be no compensation for it. There was a tendency in the Government to ask them to rely on valuers. Let their Lordships carry their minds back to the discussions on the Irish Land Act; and they would remember, when they wanted to have anything made definite in the Irish Land Act, that they were always told to trust to the Commissioners. In too many instances they followed that advice, and they knew what the consequences had been.

§ LORD BRAMWELL
said, he could not help thinking that the Proviso was a dangerous one, and that it would be much better to leave it out altogether.

§ THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)
said, that that was not the proper time to discuss that question.

§ On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause?"

§ Their Lordships divided:—Contents 51; Non-Contents 82: Majority 31.

§ Resolved in the negative.

§ LORD LECONFIELD moved an Amendment to the effect that the tenant's claim for compensation should exclude what was due to the inherent capabilities of the soil, "or the advantages of the situation." He was quite willing to add to the Amendment the words "or the advantages of the situation," as proposed in an Amendment of his noble Friend (Earl Fortescue).

§ Amendment moved, in page 1, line 18, leave out ("soil") and insert ("holding.")—(The Lord Leconfield.)

§ EARL FORTESCUE
thereupon proposed to add to the Amendment words providing that compensation should not be given for the "advantages of situa- 9 tion" —such as, for instance, proximity to a railway station newly opened.

§ Amendment moved, to said proposed Amendment, to add the words ("or the advantages of situation.")—(The Earl Fortescue.)

§ LORD BRAMWELL
said, he thought that Clause 1, and particularly the Proviso, might possibly lead to a mischievous result; for the clause, as it stood, would give rise to the inference that although, in estimating the value of an improvement, what was attributable to the inherent value of the soil was not to be taken into account, there was something that might be taken into account which was not the outlay of the outgoing tenant. That was a plausible argument, which might in some cases be used, and used successfully. He would suggest that, in assessing the compensation payable to an outgoing tenant, in respect of his outlay, the incoming tenant ought not to pay more than the sum he could himself have got the work done for; and that, if the improvement did not remain, the sum expended on it by the outgoing tenant ought to be deducted from the sum payable by the incoming tenant. He supposed, also, that if the work could be done, for instance, for £100, the outgoing tenant ought not to have more than that sum, and that when the so-called improvement was not worth its cost—in other words, was an improvident outlay—the outgoing tenant ought to have nothing; and further, that, if a portion only of the benefit of the improvement remained, the outgoing tenant ought not to be paid more than the value of that portion. He thought it reasonable that the claim of the outgoing tenant should be calculated on that footing; and the principle did not differ from that accepted by the noble Lord (the Lord President of the Council), and those who supported the Bill. The right mode of accomplishing that would be by substituting another Proviso to the effect he (Lord Bramwell) had stated. He would not, however, move it as an Amendment, but would throw it out as a suggestion to the noble Lord.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON
said, he was of opinion that the Amendment of the noble Earl (Earl Fortescue) would make the clause more simple; but he considered that such a Proviso as the noble and learned Lord 10 (Lord Bramwell) had suggested would only make the clause more complicated. He looked upon it as a most extraordinary measure of compensation.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL
said, he hoped the Government would not substitute the Proviso suggested by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Bramwell). He (the Duke of Argyll) thought it was perfectly true that the Proviso of the Government did involve the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord, a power to the valuers to give to tenants something more than their mere outlay; and there were certain cases in which the value of the improvement might exceed the sum expended, and could not be included in that outlay. That, he thought, was the intention of the Government, and he did not want to evade that principle; and he objected to the proposition of his noble and learned Friend, because it was giving to the tenant the unearned increment of other men's labour, due to the rise of wages and so forth.

§ LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)
said, he entirely agreed with what had been said by both his noble Friends (the Duke of Argyll and the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) as to the noble and learned Lord's (Lord Bramwell's) proposal. He (Lord Carling ford) thought his noble and learned Friend could not have seen how entirely his Amendment ran counter to the principle of the Bill. The effect of his proposal would be that the outgoing tenant, who might have executed work years before, would find his compensation governed by the state of prices and things existing at the time when he quitted the holding. He thought the Bill, as it stood, was better than if either of the proposals before their Lordships was adopted.

§ LORD BRAMWELL
said, that the real thing a man ought to pay was not that which might have been improvidently spent by the outgoing tenant; but that which the improvement was to the incoming tenant—that was, the price at which he could get it done. If they left the question to be what it cost the outgoing tenant, there would always be a conflict of testimony as to that.

§ THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)
said, he must call the attention of noble Lords to the Question before the House.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
said, they could not discuss these individual proposals without wandering sometimes slightly from the Question; and, therefore, he thought it was hardly fair that their Lordships should be called to Order. He sympathized with the object of the noble Earl (Earl Fortescue); but really he believed a more suitable Amendment would be to insert the words "or to any cause other than the skill or outlay of the tenant." The intention was that everything that proceeded from the tenant's own acts and skill should belong to him, and that that which was contributed by other causes to swell the value of the land should belong to the landlord. He, therefore, wished to exclude from the compensation that the tenant received anything not the result of what the tenant himself had done. They were agreed that they should not press what was known as Mr. Balfour's Amendment, limiting the compensation to the original outlay; but he thought it was fair to limit it to that which resulted from the original outlay. He would move to substitute those words for those in the Amendment before their Lordships.

§ Amendment moved, to substitute for said proposed Amendment (Earl Fortescue) the words ("or to any cause other than the skill or outlay of the tenant.")—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

§ EARL FORTESCUE
said, he greatly preferred the words of the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) to his own; but thought it would not do to leave the words "inherent capabilities of the soil" alone.

THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY
supported the Amendment of the noble Marquess.

§ LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)
said, it would be impossible to add such words as "the advantages of the situation," as they would include the nearness of the railway station, and a vast number of extraneous circumstances. He could not conceive that any competent or honest valuer would take anything into account beyond the fair effects of the outlay of the tenant. That was perfectly understood.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
said, that, as he understood the clause, it would be competent for a valuer to form an opi- 12 nion as to what the holding would let to an incoming tenant for, if the improvements of the outgoing tenant were not there.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
said, the noble Lord opposite (the Lord President of the Council) did not recognize that there were a number of causes of the value of an improvement in the mind of the valuer. The condition they wished to insert was, that the contributory element which came from other causes of the value to the incoming tenant should not be taken into consideration.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, that the Government could not accept the Amendment of the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury). It was very much like the Amendment moved by Mr. Balfour in the other House, and which had been rejected, differing, as it did, from it only by the addition of the word "skill." He did not think the words were necessary—indeed, they might be dangerous; and he would appeal to their Lordships not to press jealous and narrow points. He believed the clause would be narrowed lower than the Government wished. The contention of the Government was, that if a tenant should make a judicious outlay, and so create something of greater value than the actual sums spent, he ought to be entitled to reap advantage from his action. If no more were given to the outgoing tenant than that which represented the value of what he had himself created, no damage would be done to the landlord. On the other hand, if the valuers were bound down by the words which it was proposed to introduce into the clause, outgoing tenants would run a considerable risk of being deprived of something which they ought to have.

§ LORD BRABOURNE
said, that the speech of the noble Earl who had just sat down (the Earl of Kimberley) was the most dangerous that had yet been delivered on either side of the House. Their Lordships had agreed that there were two distinct things to be dealt with in this clause; one, the value proceeding from the inherent qualities of the land, which should clearly belong to the landlord; the other, a value created by the skill and capital of the tenant, which should as clearly be the property of the tenant. But now the noble Earl stepped 13 in, and said that there was an indefinite something beyond these two, which, by some peculiar process, valuers would be able to discover, and which would add to the value which the tenant could fairly claim. If that indefinite and indescribable something were recognized by their Lordships, the whole Bill would be in confusion, and a door would be opened to an enormous and mischievous amount of litigation. Let them, at all events, state, in definite terms, what was to be valued and what was not, for these indefinite somethings would lead to that kind of confusion which had been caused by the Irish legislation of the Government, and which, above all things, their Lordships should be anxious to avoid. He (Lord Brabourne) preferred the words suggested by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury), and hoped they would be added to the clause.

§ LORD NORTON
also supported the Amendment of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury).

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
said, he did not think that it would be wise to insist upon its acceptance.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL
said, he did not think that the addition of the words suggested by the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) brought them any nearer the point, and hoped that he would not press them. In his opinion, they were aiming at a sharp definition of that which, in itself, was undefinable.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
said, that he was afraid the result of the course taken by the Government in not accepting his Amendment would be the achievement of the very opposite of that at which they aimed by the Bill. It appeared to him that the improving tenant would henceforth be looked upon as a perfect plague, and a person to be avoided by every prudent landlord, for no landlord would ever derive benefit from any improvements, or from any increase in the value of a farm. He should not, however, press the Amendment to a Division, and he begged to withdraw it.

§ Amendment (The Marquess of Salisbury) (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

§ Amendment (The Earl Fortescue) negatived.

§ Amendment (The Lord Leconfield) (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.

§ As to Improvements executed before the Commencement of Act.

§ Clause 2 (Restrictions as to improvements before Act).

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON
proposed an Amendment, which provided that compensation under the Act should not be payable in respect of improvements executed before the commencement of the Act, except in cases "where a tenant has, before the commencement of the Act," made certain specified improvements, by inserting, after "where a tenant has," the words "within seven years."

§ Amendment moved, in page 1, line 22, after ("has") insert ("within seven years.")—(The Duke of Richmond and Gordon.)

§ LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)
said, he did not think that the Amendment was advisable or necessary. In ordinary cases, no hardship would arise; but there might be instances in which the limit of time would work injustice. The result would be that it would only lead to hardships and heart burnings; and he thought that, on the whole, it would be better to leave the clause as it stood.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON
said, he thought the noble Lord (the Lord President of the Council) had hardly understood the purport of the Amendment. What he complained of was that there was no limit at all fixed in the Bill. If the clause were to stand as it was, there would be nothing to prevent a tenant from going to the landlord, and asking compensation for that which he knew had been paid over and over again. He would give an instance from his own experience. A valuer had told him that he had clay-burned some land 35 years ago. He had reaped the benefit of the improvement over and over again, but there was nothing in the Bill to prevent its being charged for again.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, he thought that seven years was too short a period, and that it would really exclude certain improvements which his noble Friend opposite (the Duke of Richmond 15 and Gordon) himself would be anxious to include. He was informed that the improvement of chalking lasted much longer.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON
suggested 10 years as a limit.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, he would not commit the Government absolutely on the point; but if his noble Friend would alter it to 10 years as he had suggested, the Government would not divide against it.

§ Amendment amended, by substituting for the word ("seven") the word ("ten"), and agreed to.

§ On the Motion of The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL, the following Amendments made:—In page 1, line 22, leave out ("this exception that") and insert ("the exceptions following that (1)"); line 26, after ("or") insert ("(2)"); line 27, leave out ("when") and insert ("where"); page 2, line 5, leave out ("the") at end of line and insert ("this"); line 6, after ("then") insert ("such tenant"); line 8, leave out ("he.")

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
, in moving to add at the end of the clause the words— Provided that no compensation shall he claimed under this clause in contravention of any specific agreement existing at the time of the passing of this Act between the parties in reference thereto, said, the Amendment raised the question whether or not there was to be any confiscation element in the Act; for he contended that if they said that, when there was a specific agreement that compensation should not be paid, they would, nevertheless, vitiate and annul that contract, and determine that compensation should nevertheless be paid, he did not see how their action could be called by any other name than confiscation. Such agreements might have been made for a consideration to the tenant of equal value to that which he gave, such as buildings, a longer lease, improvements to be carried out by the landlord, or a lower rent; and, consequently, great injustice might be done if the Proviso were not accepted. He hoped, however, the Government would see their way to do so.

§ Amendment moved, In page 2, at end of clause, to add—("Provided that no compensation shall he claimed under this clause in contravention of any-specific agreement existing between the parties in reference thereto.")—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

§ LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)
said, he was surprised that the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) had thought it necessary to move this Proviso. Even if such an agreement as that contemplated by the Amendment should have been made for any consideration whatever—which he (Lord Carlingford) very much doubted—the matter of compensation would be taken into account under Clause 6, by the valuer. He did not think it necessary or advisable to provide by the Bill for such cases as the noble Marquess imagined. The only possible cases which would come within the noble Marquess's Proviso would be those in which the landlord had somehow or other induced the tenant to make an agreement/depriving himself of the right to compensation, without receiving any consideration on the other side. It was not wise, in passing that Bill, which appeared to be accepted by both sides of the House, to imagine every possible danger that could arise from one tenant out of 100,000. They ought not, by these suspicious, and what would, by many, be considered jealous and selfish precautions, to give the Bill a bad name and a bad aspect in the eyes of those for whose benefit it was intended, while adding nothing that was worth speaking of to the protection of the landlord.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
said, he thought the noble Lord opposite (the Lord President of the Council) had forgotten the doctrine of the thin end of the wedge. He (the Marquess of Salisbury) thought it very wise to take into consideration the doctrine of germs, and to remember that any admission, however small its application or practical result, by Parliament, of a dangerous principle, would probably on some future day be appealed to by a Liberal Ministry desirous of gaining the vote of the constituencies; and when Conservatives or Constitutionalists wished to oppose its extension, they would, no doubt, be told that the thing had already been conceded in principle, and that it ought 17 to be more widely acted upon. If their Lordships inserted in that Bill a provision which admitted the principle that contracts might be destroyed without compensation, they would lay down a dangerous precedent. He could not admit the argument that tenants should be allowed to tear up all existing contracts. If contracts existed, they should be protected.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) had argued the case on what seemed to him (the Earl of Kimberley) somewhat high grounds. He believed that the specific contracts contemplated by the noble Marquess either did not exist at all, or had only a very shadowy existence; and he, therefore, held that it was neither good policy nor very generous to put into the clause a cavilling Proviso to meet so remote and infinitesimal a possible contingency. He would ask if it was worth while to provide for extremely improbable cases?

§ THE DUKE OF MANCHESTER
said, he thought that the Proviso was necessary, as in some cases those who drained land did it badly, cheaply, and with tiles which were too small.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL
said, he would point out that the Bill respected specific agreements and nothing else; but it might be that, in many cases, the landlord might have let his farm at a certain rent, on the understanding that there should be no claim for compensation for improvements, and the equivalent to the tenant was the cheapness of his rent. Of course, that would not be taken into consideration by the valuer; and, believing that that was the intention of the Government, it should be made clear. He, however, thought they should respect the arrangement where a specific agreement had been entered into in the past. Their Lordships were told not to look at the matter in a narrow or jealous spirit, and he responded to that appeal. They were accepting a great deal in adopting that Bill. But he could not believe that the tenants of England or of Scotland, as honest men, would not approve of a Proviso which exempted from the operation of the Bill any agreement made under a specific existing contract. He frankly confessed that he considered it due to public honesty and honour that such contracts should be respected; and unless his noble Friend 18 (the Lord President of the Council) would assure him that, on the Report, words would be introduced securing that such contracts should be respected, he would certainly vote for the Amendment of the noble Marquess.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
said, that, in his opinion, the acceptance of the Proviso of the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) would in no way interfere with the principle of the Bill. The clause under notice dealt with the past, but the principle of the Bill dealt with the future; and he thought that, while legislating for the future, it was very desirable that they should show they did not intend to interfere with contracts made in the past.

§ THE EARL OF DERBY
said, that the principle of the legislation contained in the Bill, and which had been lost sight of during the discussion, was that the tenant was not on equal terms in making a bargain with his landlord. ["Oh, oh!"] The only reason by which Parliament could interfere with the perfectly sound principle of free contract was, that the tenant was not on the terms he had mentioned. If that was not so, no legislation at all was required. Both sides of the House had accepted the principle of the measure. He, himself, had never known a case of a tenant contracting that he should be debarred from claiming compensation; but, if that were done, it was to be presumed that it was done in consideration of some advantage which the tenant was to receive for waiving his claim; and it seemed to him that such a case would be covered by the provision in Clause 6, which said that any consideration that had been received from the landlord was to be taken into account in reduction of the compensation.

§ After some remarks from Lord ELLEN-BOROUGH,

§ LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)
said, that the last part of Clause 1 met the objections of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury), and the Proviso was not necessary.

§ LORD BRABOURNE
said, that he always listened with attention to any thing that fell from the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby), whose knowledge was great, and his caution proverbial. The noble Earl stated that a tenant was not upon an equal footing 19 with a landlord in making a bargain as to hiring a farm; and upon that ground he opposed the addition of the Proviso of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury). He (Lord Brabourne) merely rose to ask the noble Earl this one question—did he mean to argue, from his premisses, that because landlord and tenant did not, in his opinion, stand upon an equal footing in making their bargains, therefore such bargains made in the past ought to be broken under the provisions of the present Bill? If he did not think so, what objection could there be to a Proviso which simply secured that faith should be kept in these matters?

§ THE EARL OF WEMYSS
said, that when the Hares and Rabbits Bill was before the other House, the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) proposed that the provisions of that Bill should apply to existing contracts, and the Secretary of State for the Home Department expressed indignant surprise that he should do so; but now the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies came forward to support a similar proposal with regard to this measure. He (the Earl of Wemyss) hoped his noble Friend (the Marquess of Salisbury) would persevere in his Amendment, for it was only right that provision should be made preventing contracts in leases being interfered with.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL
said, he did not see why any distinction should be made between two men contracting as to money, and two men contracting as to money's worth. He considered that nothing was more absurd than to say that, at the present moment, there was not equality between landlord and tenant in these transactions, and supposed that the next thing that would be upset would be contracts for rent.

§ On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 116; Not-Contents 46: Majority 70.

CONTENTS.
Buckingham and Chandos, D.	Bristol, M.
	Exeter, M.
Manchester, D.	Salisbury, M.
Northumberland, D.	Winchester, M.
Richmond, D.
Somerset, D.	Amherst, E.
Wellington, D.	Ashburnham, E.
	Bathurst, E.
Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)	Beauchamp, E.
	Bradford, E.

Brownlow, E.	Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)
Cadogan, E.
Camperdown, E.	Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)
Carnarvon, E.
Chichester, E.	Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)
Coventry, E.
Cowper, E.	Clinton, L.
Dartrey, E.	Colville of Culross, L.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)	Crofton, L.
	de Clifford, L.
	Delamere, L.
Dundonald, E.	De L'Isle and Dudley, L.
Feversham, E.
Fortescue, E.	Digby, L.
Haddington, E.	Douglas, L. (E. Home.)
Harewood, E.	Egerton, L.
Harrington, E.	Ellenborough, L.
Ilchester, E.	Forbes, L.
Jersey, E.	Gerard, L.
Kilmorey, E.	Haldon, L.
Macclesfield, E.	Harlech, L.
Manvers, E.	Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)
Milltown, E.
Minto, E.	Heytesbury, L.
Mount Cashell, E.	Hopetoun, L. (E. Hopetoun.) [Teller.]
Mount Edgcumbe, E.
Pembroke and Montgomery, E.	Houghton, L.
	Hylton, L.
Powis, E.	Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)
Redesdale, E.	Lamington, L.
Romney, E.	Leconfield, L.
Sandwich, E.	Lovat, L.
Stanhope, E.	Lyveden, L.
Suffolk and Berkshire, E.	Norton, L.
	O'Neill, L.
Tankerville, E.	Penrhyn, L.
Verulam, E.	Sherborne, L.
	Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)
Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty)
	Stanley of Alderley, L.
Hardinge, V.	Stewart of Garlies, L.(E. Galloway.)
Hawarden, V. [Teller.]
Hood, V.	Stratheden and Campbell, L.
Lifford, V.
Melville, V.	Strathnairn, L.
Sherbrooke, V.	Strathspey, L. [E. Seafield.)
Sidmouth, V.
	Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)
Rochester, L. Bp.
St. Albans, L. Bp.	Templemore, L.
	Tollemache, L.
	Tredegar, L.
Alington, L.	Ventry, L.
Ashford, L. (V. Bury.)	Watson, L.
Bagot, L.	Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)
Balfour of Burleigh, L.
Beaumont, L.	Westbury, L.
Belper, L.	Winmarleigh, L.
Blantyre, L.	Wynford, L.
Brabourne, L.	Zouche of Haryng-worth, L.
Bramwell, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Selborne, E. (L. Chancellor.)	Kimberley, E.
	Morley, E.
	Northbrook, E.
Grafton, D.	Saint Germans, E.
Westminster, D.	Sydney, E.
	Yarborough, E.
Ailesbury, M.
	Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)
Derby, E.
Granville, E.	Powerscourt, V.

Torrington, V.	Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)
Exeter, L. Bp.	Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)
Aberdare, L.	Methuen, L.
Aleester, L.	Moncreiff, L.
Blachford, L.	Monson, L. [Teller.]
Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]	Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)
Braye, L.	Reay, L.
Breadalbane, L. (E. Breadalbane.)	Ribblesdale, L.
	Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)
Carlingford, L.
Carrington, L.	Sandhurst, L.
Churchill, L.	Skene, L. (E. Fife.)
Coleridge, L.	Thurlow, L.
Dacre, L.	Vaux of Harrowden, L.
De Mauley, L.
Emly, L.	Wolverton, L.
Erskine, L.	Wrottesley, L.
Greville, L.

§ Resolved in the affirmative.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL
said, he would urge on the Government, before Report, to consider the question of introducing some provision specifying the time within which the outgoing tenant must send in his claim for compensation. In many cases, where the leases or tenancies expired within the next 12 months, it was impossible to get incoming tenants to bid, as they did not know what compensation might be claimed under the Bill. The case was especially serious in Scotland, where the system of leases prevailed.

§ LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)
said, he would consider the matter before Report.

§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.

§ As to Improvements executed after the Commencement of Act.

§ Clause 3 (Consent of landlord as to improvement in first part of Schedule).

§ On the Motion of The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL, Amendment made, in page 2, line 16, after ("previously") insert ("to the execution of the improvement and after the passing of this Act.")

§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 4 (Notice to landlord as to improvement in second part of Schedule).

§ THE EARL OF CARNARVON moved an Amendment, requiring a tenant to give his landlord not less than two months' notice of his intention to make any improvement mentioned in the 2nd Part of the First Schedule of the Bill.

§ Amendment moved, in page 2, line 28, leave out ("one month") and insert ("two months.")—(The Earl of Carnarvon.)

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM AND CHANDOS
, in moving an Amendment, requiring that drainage work executed by a tenant should be carried out under the inspection and with the approval of an Inspector appointed by the Enclosure Commissioners, said, his object was to prevent drainage being done in an imperfect manner. He believed the supervision he proposed would be acceptable, and satisfactory both to landlords and tenants.

§ Amendment moved, In page 2, line 30, after ("work") insert ("and unless the work shall he carried out under the inspection of, and with the approval of, an Inspector appointed by the Enclosure Commissioners.")—(The Duke of Buckingham and Chandos.)

§ LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)
said, he hoped the noble Duke would not press the Amendment. If it were agreed to, it would make the clause a dead letter. It would be far better, in his opinion, to refuse the right altogether, which the Bill proposed to give to the tenant, of executing drainage where the landlord would not do it, rather than, in 99 cases out of 100, to make it absolutely impossible that the tenant should undertake the work himself. If inspection of this kind were to be imposed in all cases, needless expense and interference would be brought about; and he did not know if the noble Duke provided for any payment of those Inspectors of the Enclosure Commissioners, as it was quite hopeless to expect the tenant to go to the expense and trouble of an inspection.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON
said, he fully agreed in what had been said by the noble Lord (the Lord President of the Council). He (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) wished to point out that if much drainage were done, there would be a great demand upon the Enclosure Commissioners for Inspectors. His experience of drainage was that it was by no means an inexpensive operation; and that, where it was worth doing, landlords preferred to do the draining themselves, 23 either with their own money or with money borrowed. He hoped his noble Friend (the Duke of Buckingham) would not put the Committee to the trouble of a Division on the subject.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH
said, he was of opinion that tenants, in executing drainage, would endeavour to do it in the cheapest manner, and in most cases would make it shallow. Drainage work, unless it was done practically, rendered the doing of the work over again necessary; in fact, he himself was obliged, at the present time, to drain over again land that had been drained by his tenants. If the tenants were not supervised in their draining operations they would do more harm than good, for they would generally do it with tiles of so small a size that the process would soon have to be repeated.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL
said, he felt the force of the objection taken by the Government. It would be inexpedient, in all cases, to call in the Enclosure Commissioners, especially in cases where the work to be done was inconsiderable; but, on the other hand, in cases of large drainage works, it would be advisable that the tenant should be supervised. He wished to ask the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack a question. The clause said the tenant was to give notice to the landlord of his intention to drain, and also to give him a specification of the work intended. But it went on to speak of "the improvement," and he apprehended that the legal interpretation of that would be that "the improvement" was the work as "specified. He wished to know then, whether, if the landlord should exercise his option to carry out the improvement, he would be required to carry it out according to the specification? Further, supposing a tenant furnished a specification for certain work, and drained a depth, Bay, of only 18 inches, was the landlord to have no means of checking that kind of operation, except by doing the work himself? There seemed to be no end of pitfalls, and no end of opportunities for litigation in the clause; and, in his opinion, as he read it, a more inequitable, more unjust, and more immoral condition could not be placed in an Act of Parliament. It was a clause in derogation of public policy, as public policy was that the drainage should be thoroughly and perfectly done. He wished 24 to ask the noble and learned Earl (the Lord Chancellor) whether the "specification" meant "the improvement? "

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
, in reply, said, that he did not think, as at present advised, the word "specification" would apply to "the improvement," further than being merely a description of it. Therefore, in the case of a landlord electing to carry out the improvement himself, he would not be bound to keep to the specification of a tenant. His impression was, that the landlord would be allowed to improve upon the tenant's specification, so long as he executed the work in a proper and reasonable manner, without needless expense, and still charge a percentage on the whole outlay. He considered that if a landlord allowed a tenant to do any drainage, he would send an agent to see how the work was going on; and if it were done too cheaply and badly there would be no improvement made.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
said, he was of opinion that in that ease "specification" was not the right word to use.

§ LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)
said, that if the drains were improperly made, and did not produce any effect on the land, the man would get no compensation.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL
said, it would be a decidedly unfair and unjust provision that a landlord should be bound by a bad and imperfect specification put forward by an ignorant tenant. He would, therefore, move an Amendment later on to provide that "the landlord may object to the specification, and may execute the drainage himself."

THE EARL of KIMBERLEY
said, he entirely agreed with the noble Duke behind him (the Duke of Argyll) that it would never do to allow an ignorant tenant to bind his landlord by a bad specification. He thought that the landlord should, in the alternative, be placed in a position to execute the drainage works himself, and would suggest that the word "description" of the work intended would meet the case better. The matter should be considered on Report.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
said, that the landlord should have power to stop the execution of drainage injurious to the land; and, as he read the clause, there was nothing in it to prevent a 25 landlord from binding his tenants not to drain. Of course, if the tenant did drain, he could claim compensation for it; but he could be bound not to do so, under such penalties as could be put in the agreement. In those circumstances, he did not think the clause would really be found to be so injurious in practice to landlords as it appeared at first sight. He thought the most convenient course would be for the Government to bring up some appropriate language on Report.

§ LORD WATSON
suggested that the clause as drawn did not carry out the object of its framers.

§ THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM AND CHANDOS
said, he would withdraw the Amendment, on the understanding that the matter would be considered on Report.

§ Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

LORD EGERTON OF TATTON
, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 37, to omit from the word "sum" to "not" in line 38, said, the words he proposed to strike out provided that the landlord who executed an improvement himself might charge the tenant a sum not exceeding 5 per cent per annum on the outlay incurred in executing it. Those words, he maintained, were quite unnecessary, and he objected in principle to any interference between landlord and tenant that was not necessary for the purposes of the Act. If, however, that part of the clause was to be retained, 6½ or 7 should, he thought, be substituted for 5 per cent.

§ Amendment moved, in page 2, line 37, to leave out from ("sum") to ("not") in line 38.—(The Lord Egerton of Tatton.)

§ LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)
said, that the clause gave to a landlord who himself executed works of drainage two alternatives as to the mode of charging the tenant for them. He might charge either a sum not exceeding 5 per cent on the outlay, or such annual sum, payable for a period of 25 years, as would repay such outlay with interest at 3 per cent. He understood the noble Lord opposite (Lord Egerton of Tatton) to desire to remove the first alternative from the clause, and to leave the landlord only the second alternative. He 26 did not see the advantage of such a change.

§ Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

§ THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM AND CHANDOS moved, as an Amendment, to substitute 4 per cent for 3 per cent at line 40. He thought the two alternatives given in the clause should be retained; but he thought the rate of interest in the latter was put at so low a figure in the clause as to render it impossible, according to all experience, for the landlord to borrow money. It seemed to him it should be raised from 3 to 4 per cent.

§ Amendment moved, in page 2, line 40, to leave out ("three") and insert ("four.")—(The Duke of Buckingham and Chandos.)

§ LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)
said, he thought the terms fixed by the clause were not unreasonable, and there was no sufficient ground for raising the figure.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON
said, he thought the rate of interest ought to be increased; for the landlord would, in many cases, have himself to borrow the money to execute the improvements.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL
said, he was surprised that Her Majesty's Government would not accept the Amendment. Landlords had seldom any money at command to enable them to execute improvements, and, therefore, had to borrow for the purpose; and they could not borrow at less than 4 per cent. This usury clause was simply going back to barbarous principles. The principle of the Bill was that it was in the interests of public policy that every tenant should be free to drain his land, or call on his landlord to do so. He did not deny that there was much to be said in favour of that principle; but surely that compelled the Government to fix the interest at such a rate as they knew the landlord would be able to borrow at. In that case, it was only just, if the landlord was to execute the work, and had to borrow money for the purpose, to fix the higher rate rather than the lower. He had himself drained at 5 per cent. and also very largely at 6½ per cent; and he had found that, in many cases, his tenants were willing to pay 6½, because they themselves got 13 or 14 per 27 cent for the outlay. The rate fixed ought to be the market rate.

§ EARL FORTESCUE
said, that the clause, obliging, as it did, landlords to lay out their money at less than the market rate of interest, was nothing less than confiscation.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
hoped the Government would not accede to the Amendment.

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ Moved, "To leave out Clause 4, as amended."—(The Lord Stanley of Alderley.)

§ On Question? Resolved in the negative. Clause, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 5 (Reservation as to existing and future contracts of tenancy).

§ THE EARL OF FIFE
, in moving an Amendment, stating that in the consideration of what should constitute such fair and reasonable compensation as would oust compensation under the Act, regard should be had to the time when, and the circumstances in which the improvements were made, said, he wished to point out that a perfectly bonâ fide agreement might be entered into between a landlord and his tenant with regard to the compensation which the latter ought to receive for his outlay on improvements, and that such compensation, though perfectly fair in the circumstances in which the contract was originally made, might, as the Bill stood, be set aside on an application to a valuer by the tenant, such application being made years afterwards when the conditions of the locality might have undergone a complete change. His Amendment was intended to obviate that state of things.

§ Amendment moved, in page 3, line 22, after ("reasonable compensation") insert ("having regard to the circumstances existing at the time of making such agreement.")—(The Earl of Fife.)

LORD EGERTON OF TATTON
asked that the words of the Amendment he had on the Paper, having regard to the custom of the country, should also be included. He held that agreements ought to be considered fair and reasonable when they were in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1875, and when they were thought to be fair and reasonable in the locality to which they applied.

§ LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)
said, he would point out that the Amendment had nothing to do with existing contracts of tenancies; but he objected to the addition of the words "and custom of the country, if any." It was impossible to accept those words; but he was prepared to accept the words moved by the noble Earl on that side of the House.

§ After a few remarks from Lord EGERTON Of TATTON,

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
said, it was clear that a certain amount of litigation would have to be gone through before the precise meaning of the Bill could be settled; and he certainly commiserated those who would have to undertake such litigation. Not until the decisions of the Courts of Law had been given would their Lordships know what this measure meant.

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ On the Motion of The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL, the following Amendment made:—In page 3, line 25, insert at the end of the clause as a separate paragraph— The last-mentioned pro vision of this section relating to a particular agreement shall apply in the case of a tenancy under a contract of tenancy current at the commencement of this Act in respect of an improvement mentioned in the third part of the first schedule hereto, specific compensation for which is not provided by any agreement in writing, or custom, or the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1875.

§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.

§ Moved, To insert the following New Clause (5a):— A tenant shall, if required by his landlord, send him vouchers of his outlay on improvements mentioned in the third part of the First Schedule hereto within six months after their execution; and compensation under this Act shall not he paid unless the tenant, if so required, has within such period produced the said vouchers."—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)

§ LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)
said, the Government could see no necessity for the proposed Amendment. It was true it was the most moderate of its class; but it was one of several of the same kind on the Paper which tended very much to harass the tenant with unnecessary restrictions, and he must therefore decline to accept it. He thought it would be very unwise to require the tenant to submit 29 to conditions of this kind. They must remember that the Bill went upon the principle of value. By adopting that principle, they were saved the necessity of surrounding those operations of the tenant with all those precautions which would inevitably have the result of preventing him from executing the improvements at all, or of depriving him of his compensation, however good his manuring might have been.

LORD BALFOUR
said, he had an Amendment on the Paper to which he might refer at this stage. Its object was to secure both the landlord and the tenant against fraud, by providing that, in the large majority of cases, where artificial manures were applied to the land, analyses of them should be made. It was impossible to find out, in many cases, the results of manures, unless analyzed before they were put on the land, for great frauds were committed by artificial manure manufacturers; and therefore there was a strong reason for providing against them by insisting upon analyses, and their proper application. He could claim the authority of the Government for the principle of his Amendment. Clause 13 provided that samples and vouchers might be called for; but, as there was no penalty attaching to their destruction, the unscrupulous man who destroyed such evidence as made against him would be in a better position than a scrupulous one. Unless some greater security in this respect were given to both landlord and tenant, the Government ran considerable risk of inflicting much harm on both. This was not an Amendment particularly in the interest of the landlord. As soon as he got the Scottish Bill, he had sent it to the committee of the local agricultural society in his district; and the Amendment which he had to propose was recommended by practical men, who knew the dangers that existed.

§ VISCOUNT MIDLETON
said, he fully agreed with what had been said by his noble Friend (Lord Balfour). He thought it was impossible to exaggerate the danger of fraud in regard to artificial manures that was likely to arise under the Bill; and he hoped that the Government would pledge themselves to bring up, at a future stage, some provision which would protect the interests, not only of the landlord, but also of the incoming tenant, upon whose shoulders 30 the deficiency in respect to the quality of those manures often fell.

§ THE EARL OF FIFE
said, he considered it would be wrong to put such conditions into an Act of Parliament as those proposed by the Amendment, as all those arrangements could be embodied in agreements between landlord and tenant. In fact, it had been his practice to make such arrangements as were requisite with his tenants. He approved, however, of the practice of taking an analysis of the artificial manures that were put into the soil.

LORD BALFOUR
said, that, with reference to the remarks of the noble Earl (the Earl of Fife), he would refer him to Clause 54, and would suggest to him that such agreements might be held to be illegal were the Bill to pass as it stood.

§ LORD HENNIKER
said, he could confirm, to the fullest extent, what had been said by the noble Lord (Lord Balfour) as to the frauds and abuses existing in regard to artificial manures. Many instances had come before him, showing that those manures were adulterated by the merchants to such an extent as to render them almost absolutely valueless. He knew of a case, of which he had good proof, where a man he knew well—the son of a builder who hired a gravel pit—had seen the process of making guano. There was a vein of yellow clay, which was useless for any other purpose, in this gravel pit. It was sold by cart-loads to a manure manufacturer. This young man used to take this clay every now and then, and have it mixed up into a sort of pea-soup, with bones, offal, and so on; at the proper time chemicals were added, and the result was the production of the most perfect-looking guano possible. Again, a friend of his had, some 21 or 22 years ago, gone out to Peru to buy up all the guano there for one of the largest firms in London. He had succeeded in doing so, and he told him at the time that the produce of these guano islands—the accumulations of centuries—could not last—he was not quite sure—but his recollection was from seven to ten years. Of course, there might be guano elsewhere; but this fact would show their Lordships the difficulty of the question. When the greatest stock of real guano could be used up in such a short time, how could what was now sold be genuine, 31 and worth putting on the land? There was, he thought, a great deal to be said in favour of the Amendment of his noble Friend (the Duke of Buccleuch); and he trusted that it would not be withdrawn, unless an assurance were given by the Government that the matter which it involved would be satisfactorily dealt with.

§ THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK
said, he hoped that their Lordships would not agree to the Amendment. He fully agreed with his noble Friend (the Earl of Fife) that it would be inexpedient to include in the Bill any such minute regulations in regard to fertilizing substances and feeding stuffs as those now proposed. The present Bill applied to that matter precisely the same principle as was contained in the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1875—namely, that the sum to be paid to the outgoing tenant should be the value to the incoming tenant.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
said, he would point out that there was nothing in Clause 54 making it unlawful for a landlord and tenant to come to an agreement as to the verification, by any reasonable and proper means, of the character and quality of manures and feeding stuffs, and of keeping a record of them. The clause only voided an agreement depriving a tenant of his right to compensation.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL
said, that the statement of the noble and learned Earl (the Lord Chancellor) brought great relief to his mind. If the view of the noble and learned Earl was correct that it was competent under the Bill to make these agreements, there was no need for the Amendment of the noble Duke opposite. In that case, he (the Duke of Argyll) would fully admit that it was inexpedient to put such minute regulations into an Act of Parliament; but he thought that, in respect of any manures for which the tenant was to claim, the tenant ought to give vouchers to his landlord, without which they could not prevent the greatest possible frauds from taking place, because great frauds were committed with regard to manures and feeding stuffs.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
said, that, notwithstanding the explanation of the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack, he should like, in order to make assurance doubly sure, and to guard against uncertainty of the law, and to give some 32 better assurance of protection, to see an Amendment inserted to the effect that a landlord and tenant should be able to make an agreement for the purpose of insuring a record being kept both as to the quality and quantity of the manures which were to be put into the soil. If some such words were introduced, the clause would then be deemed satisfactory, and it would protect all parties against fraud.

LORD HARRIS
supported the Amendment.

LORD BALFOUR
said, what they wanted to do was to make assurance doubly sure, so that when the question as to compensation came to be tried the opinion given by the noble and learned Earl upon the Woolsack should be the law, and not merely an opinion.

§ Clause (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

§ Regulations as to Estimates of Improvements.

§ Clause 6 (Set-off of benefit to tenant).

§ On the Motion of The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL, the following Amendment made:—In page 3, line 40, after ("therefrom") insert ("and.")

LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY
proposed, as an Amendment, that the landlord should have the right to claim compensation from the tenant for waste or breach of husbandry committed at any time within seven years before the determination of the tenancy. The Bill limited the claim of the landlord to a period of four years before the end of the tenancy. He thought that, as the tenant could claim for improvements made within 10 years, it was only fair that the landlords' rights should extend back for seven years.

§ Amendment moved, in page 4, line 16, to leave out ("four") and insert ("seven.")—(The Lord De L'Isle and Dudley.)

§ LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)
said, that this was in reality an Amendment on the Act of 1875. He did not know that anything had happened since the passing of that Act to lead to the conclusion that that was an improper enactment.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL
said, he thought it was unfair, where the tenant 33 could claim for the whole 19 years of a lease, that the landlord's counter-claim for that part should extend to only four years back.

§ On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 75; Not-Contents 48: Majority 27.

§ Resolved in the affirmative.

§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON
, in moving, as an Amendment, after Clause 6, the insertion of a new clause, providing that, with respect to the application of artificial manures, there should not be taken into account any larger outlay during the last year of the tenancy than the average amount of the tenant's outlay for like purposes during the three next preceding years of the tenancy, or other less number of years for which the tenancy has endured, said, he wished to point out that it was quite possible that, in the last year of his tenancy, a farmer might lay out an enormous sum of money in feeding stuffs in respect of which he would get compensation, although he had previously expended nothing.

§ Amendment moved, After Clause 6, page 4, line 17, insert as a separate clause: Provided always, as regards 22 and 23 of Part III. of First Schedule," There shall not he taken into account any larger outlay during the last year of the tenancy than the average amount of the tenant's outlay for like purposes during the three next preceding years of the tenancy or other less number of years for which the tenancy has endured."—(The Duke of Richmond and Gordon.)

§ LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)
said, he was sorry he could not accept this Amendment, coming from the noble Duke, though it would be far more agreeable to him to do so. But the principle of the Bill was that judgment was to be formed in accordance with results; and he must therefore be consistent, and decline to accept it.

THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY
said, the object of the Bill was to secure good farming. The Amendment had a distinet tendency in this direction, and the Government should therefore accept it. To his great regret, however, they had declined to do so.

THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE
hoped that the noble Duke (the Duke of Rich- 34 mond and Gordon) would not press the Amendment, which was not necessary to the Bill.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL
said, that that proposal was very analogous to a stipulation contained in almost every Scotch lease, to the effect that the farmer should not, during the last few years of the lease, bring upon the farm a larger amount of stock than it usually or legitimately carried. It was one of the commonest tricks for the farmer to do that, in order to swell his claim; and, therefore, a distinct condition was inserted in Scotch leases to guard against it. He, for one, earnestly hoped that under that Bill they would be free to make their own contracts in reference to that matter.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
said, that the question would be, whether the existence of such a condition as this in an agreement would make the agreement unfair and unreasonable? All that was desired by it could be obtained by such an agreement as was contemplated in the 5th clause.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
said, he would contrast the observation of the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack with the frequent assurances they had received that the words "fair and reasonable" in relation to those matters were incapable of statutory definition. In respect to what was done in the last year of the tenancy, no valuer, however infallible his instincts, could possibly tell what was the value of an outlay the results of which were not yet above the ground. In regard to the last year, they must, therefore, proceed by outlay, and could not possibly proceed by value, because the value would not then have shown itself. No answer had been given to the contention that, unless they inserted in the Bill some clause of that kind, the opportunities for fraud would be so great that they were certain to be taken advantage of.

§ Amendment agreed to; Clause inserted.

LORD BALFOUR
, in moving the insertion of a clause to follow Clause 6, with the object of providing that where a tenant proposed to claim compensation under the Act as to manures, he should afford the landlord an opportunity of taking samples as to the fertilizing substances or feeding stuffs for which the claim was made, said, he wished to ask 35 whether it would be possible for him, under that Bill, to make a contract providing that, if some artificial manure that was universally acknowledged to be prejudicial to the soil—for example, nitrate of soda, which had a stimulating effect in the first year after it was applied, but was unduly exhausting to the land—he should be entitled to receive a certain sum of money.

§ Amendment moved, In Page 4, after Clause 6, insert as a new clause:—" In all cases where a tenant proposes to claim compensation under Part III. of the First Schedule of this Act he shall—

(1.) Afford the landlord or any person duly authorised by him an opportunity of taking samples of any fertilising substance or feeding stuffs for the application' or use of which he proposes to claim compensation:
(2.) Give at least seven days notice in writing to the landlord or his duly authorised agent of his intention to apply any fertilising substance to any crop upon the holding during the last year of the tenancy:
(3.) Cause analyses to be made of all such fertilising substances and feeding stuffs:

And in ascertaining the amount to be paid to a tenant for compensation in respect of the application or use of fertilising substances and feeding stuffs any referee or umpire shall have regard to—

(a.) The state and condition of the holding;
(b.) The quantity, cost, and quality as ascertained by analysis of the fertilising substances and feeding stuffs used, and the time and mode of their application and use;
(c.) Any special circumstance by which the interest of the landlord, the tenant, or his successor in the farm, may be affected."—(The Lord Balfour.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
, in reply, said, that an agreement for a fair and reasonable compensation would not be inconsistent with the Bill.

LORD HARRIS
, who had the following Amendment upon the Paper:—In Page 4, after Clause 6, insert the following clause:— (Right of landlord to have analysis of artificial manures, feeding stuffs, &c. for which compensation claimed.) The landlord shall be entitled to take from a certified analytical chemist an analysis and statement of the money value of any artificial manures, feeding stuffs, and permanent grass seeds bought and used by the tenant on his holding during the last year of his tenancy, and for which compensation is claimed under this Act, 36 said, he should not move it, as he was quite willing to give way to the Amendment of his noble Friend (Lord Balfour) now before the Committee.

THE EARL OF GALLOWAY
hoped the Committee would agree to one or other of the Amendments. This was a tenant's question, rather than a landlord's.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, that, in his opinion, if all these minute obligations as to notices, &c, were cast upon the tenant, the Act would be useless; for the tenant would be inclined rather to forego his compensation than comply with them.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
said, he must admit that the proposals of his noble Friend behind him (Lord Balfour) were open to the objection of being too minute. He also thought their Lordships might accept the explanation of the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack, that the question of manures might be dealt with by agreement. It was, moreover, preferable that these matters should be the subject of mutual agreement, rather than laid down in the iron form of an Act of Parliament.

§ Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdraivn.

§ Procedure.

§ Clause 7 (Notice of intended claim) agreed to.

§ Clause 8 (Compensation agreed or settled by reference).

§ Amendment moved, In page 4, line 32, to leave out ("the difference") and insert ("any difference as to the amount of compensation, and as to whether any agreement is fair and reasonable, and as to any matter to be taken into account in reduction or augmentation of the tenant's claim for compensation, and as to all other matters incidental to settling the account between landlord and tenant in respect of compensation under this Act.")—(The Lord President.)

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
said, he objected to the Amendment, because, under it, the noble Lord (the Lord President of the Council) would take away from the Courts of Law the right of deciding what constituted a fair and reasonable agreement, and hand that right over to a valuer or referee sent down from the Land Commission Office. When a question was brought before a Court of Law, one knew that the old principles of the Common Law would be 37 applied as far as possible to existing Acts of Parliament; but no such certainty could be felt when matters were referred to valuers who possessed no legal experience, and who might be prejudiced this way or that. He repeated that the question what was fair and reasonable was not to be decided by a Court of Law, but by a referee. That seemed to him a most objectionable proposal. He would only ask them to remember a very striking instance of what he said. Remember their experience of the Sub-Commissioners under the Irish Land Act. The Courts of Law had saved what little remained to be saved to the Irish landlord; and he did not wish the Courts of Law to be prevented from saving what little there was left to the English landlord. Their experience ought to teach them to trust in the old Courts of Law in preference to new tribunals.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, he thought that the effect of the noble Marquess's observation would be that everyone was to be driven into litigation.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
said, that, in his opinion, it would be well for landlords and tenants to refer their differences to a referee in the first instance, and only in case of disagreement to have recourse to litigation.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
said, it seemed to him that the question whether an agreement was fair and reasonable ought to be settled by a higher authority than a referee.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, with regard to the objection of the noble Earl (the Earl of Camperdown), he should like to know if it was not the fact that referees were accustomed to deal with disputes in which the question of compensation was involved? In all cases in which no more than £100 was at stake, it would be wise to accept the decision of a referee.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
said, that there was another reason why a decision of a Court of Law should be taken. They had seen what difficulty there was in ascertaining what "fair and reasonable" was; and yet on the decision of the meaning of those words depended the comfort of every landlord and every tenant. He considered that it was a matter of vital importance to have it decided as early as possible what 38 was the meaning of those words, for that it was a matter which should rest with valuers up and down the country was more than they could contemplate with satisfaction. If those words were decided by a valuer here and a valuer there, it established nothing; but once a thing had been decided by a Court of Law, the decision became law, and was recognized all over the country. There could be no doubt the effect of the clause must be to enlarge the powers of the referee. He considered the referee the weakest part of the Bill, and he had no confidence in him, and, therefore, objected to any enlargement of the powers vested in him.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
said, the objection he took to the clause was, that it mixed up two things that should be entirely separate—namely, the amount of the compensation, and the question of what was fair and reasonable.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
said, he would point out that if a tenant claimed compensation under the Act, and not under the agreement, in cases where an agreement for compensation had been entered into, he would have to go to the referee; and how was the referee to ascertain whether his jurisdiction was excluded or not without ascertaining whether the compensation under the agreement was fair and reasonable or not?

§ On Question, "That the words ('the difference ') stand part of the Clause? "

§ Their Lordships divided:—Contents 85; Not-Contents 40: Majority 45.

CONTENTS.
Buckingham and Chandos, D.	Doncaster, E, (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)
Manchester, D.
Northumberland, D.	Feversham, E.
Richmond, D.	Fortescue, E.
	Haddington, E.
Abercorn, M. (D. Abercom.)	Harewood, E.
	Macclesfield, E.
Bristol, M.	Manvers, E.
Exeter, M.	Milltown, E.
Salisbury, M.	Mount Cashell, E.
Winchester, M.	Mount Edgcumbe, E.
	Powis, E.
Bathurst, E.	Redesdale, E.
Beauchamp, E.	Romney, E.
Bradford, E.	Sandwich, E.
Brownlow, E.	Stanhope, E.
Cadogan, E.	Suffolk and Berkshire, E
Camperdown, E.
Carnarvon, E.	Tankerville, E.
Coventry, E.	Verulam, E.

Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)	Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)
Hardinge, V.	Heytesbury, L.
Hawarden, V. [Tetter.]	Hopetoun, L.(E. Hopetoun.) [Teller.]
Lifford, V.
Melville, V.	Hylton, L.
Sidmouth, V.	Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)
	Leconfield, L.
Alington, E.	Lovat, E.
Ashford, L. (V. Bury)	Norton, L.
Bagot, E.	O'Neill, L.
Balfour of Burleigh, L.	Penrhyn, L.
Botreaux, L. (E. Loudoun.)	Sherborne, L.
	Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)
Brabourne, L.
Brancepeth, E. (V. Boyne.)	Stanley of Alderley, L.
	Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)
Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)
	Strathnairn, L.
Clinton, L.	Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.)
Crofton, L.
Delamere, L.	Templemore, L.
Digby, L.	Tollemache, L.
Douglas, L. (E. Home.)	Tredegar, L.
Egerton, L.	Ventry, E.
Ellenborough, L.	Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)
Forbes, L.
Gerard, E.	Westbury, L.
Haldon, L.	Wynford, L.
Harlech, L.	Zouche of Haryngworth, L.
Harris, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Selborne, E. (L. Chancellor.)	Breadalbane, L. (E. Breadalbane.)
	Carlingford, L.
Grafton, D.	Carrington, L.
	Chesham, L.
Ailesbury, M.	Dacre, L.
	De Mauley, L.
Cowper, E.	Howth, L. (E. Howth.)
Derby, E.	Kenmare, E. (E. Kenmare.)
Granville, E.
Kimberley, E.	Lyttelton, L.
Morley, E.	Methuen, L.
Northbrook, E.	Monson, L. [Teller.]
Saint Germans, E.	Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)
Shaftesbury, E.
Sydney, E.	Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)
Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)	Reay, L.
	Ribblesdale, L.
Powerscourt, L.	Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery)
Exeter, L. Bp.
	Sandhurst, L.
Aberdare, L.	Thurlow, L.
Belper, L.	Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Blachford, L.	Wolverton, L.
Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]	Wrottesley, L.

§ Resolved in the affirmative.

§ Clause agreed to.

§ Clause 9 (Appointment of referee or referees and umpire).

THE EARL OF CARNARVON
said, he desired to amend the clause at page 4, line 36, by inserting the words "or if they have, by agreement, already made 40 such an appointment." Under the Bill, the parties might agree in appointing a referee; and he desired to provide for the case in which the parties might, at the commencement of the tenancy, or any other period, provide for a possible disagreement and select their umpire.

§ Amendment moved, In page 4, line 36, after ("concur") insert ("or if they have, by agreement, already made such an appointment.")—(The Earl of Carnarvon.)

§ LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)
said, he thought the balance of convenience against the Amendment, which would be open to abuse. It was undesirable that such an appointment should be made before the occasion for it arose; and he should prefer the clause to be as it stood.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
said, he regretted that the Government had refused to accept an Amendment proposed solely to check litigation. The danger of the clause, as it stood, was this—that, unlike the Act of 1875, this Bill was compulsory, and the tenant, under it, would have a right to insist that a referee should be sent down by the Land Commission; and thus a class of men, whom he might call Sub-Commissioners, might come into existence, who would act as the Irish Sub-Commissioners had acted. Who were the Land Commissioners? They consisted of three gentlemen—one of them was an old Member of that House, of Liberal opinions, and another of them was Sir James Caird, who was well known to be a man of the most extreme views. ["Oh, oh!"] He would practically have the nomination of the Sub-Commissioners; and great danger might arise from the circumstance. ["Oh, oh!"] Was it, then, perfectly impossible that he should allow those extreme views to be visible in the choice of the men he should send down to decide these arbitrations? He considered that the Amendment would not only tend to diminish litigation, and to keep up the good relations that subsisted between landlord and tenant, but would have the effect of keeping up a more independent and local decision upon these questions.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, he must confess that he was lost in astonishment at the extraordinary language used 41 by the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury), in objecting to a provision so simple as the one under notice, and which was copied from the Act of 1875.

§ Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

§ Clause agreed to.

§ Clause 10 (Requisition for appointment of umpire by Inclosure Commissioners, &c.)

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
, in moving an Amendment, with the object of providing that, if either party objected to the umpire appointed by the Land Commissioners, then the umpire or his successor should be appointed by the President and Council of the Institute of Surveyors, said, that the object of his Amendment was to provide that the appointment of such officials should not be left absolutely to a person who had strong political views, as had been the case in Ireland. After their experience in that country, they could not safely trust men of extreme opinions in those matters. He thought, if the Government wished to relieve their Bill of any suspicion of partiality, they would adopt the Amendment.

§ Amendment moved, In page 5, line 32, after ("Commissioners") insert ("but if either party shall in writing object to such appointment, then the umpire, or any successor to him, shall be appointed by the President and Council of the Institute of Surveyors.")—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

§ In reply to The LORD CHANCELLOR,

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON
said, that the Institute of Surveyors was a body which received a Royal Charter in the year 1881, and which was previously recognized by Parliament in the Metropolis Management Act.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
said, the Government must decline to accept the Amendment. It cast a reflection upon the Land Commissioners, and treated them in a manner which they did not deserve.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
said, he had cast no reflection whatever on the Land Commissioners. He only said that they were—what their Lordships had seen the Commissioners and Sub-Commissioners in Ireland to have been 42 —perfectly honourable men intending to do justice, but yet led by that impulse, which few public men could resist, to leave impressed on their acts some trace of Party bias.

§ On Question, "That those words be there inserted?"

§ Their Lordships divided:—Contents 74; Not-Contents 46: Majority 28.

§ Resolved in the affirmative.

§ Clause, as amended, agrted to.

§ Clauses 11 to 17, inclusive, severally agreed to.

§ Clause 18 (Award to give particulars).

§ On the Motion of The Lord LECONFIELD, the following Amendments made:—In page 7, line 12, leave out from ("and") to the second ("the") in line 14; and in line 15, leave out ("for the purposes of such charge").

§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clauses 19 to 21, inclusive, severally agreed to.

§ Clause 22 (Appeal to County Court).

§ On the Motion of The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL, the following Amendment made:—In page 7, line 42, insert as a separate sub-section:— ("That the award proceeds wholly or in part upon an improper application of or upon the omission properly to apply the special provisions of section 5 or any other part of this Act")

§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clauses 23 and 24 severally agreed to.

§ Clause 25 (Provisions respecting married women).

§ On the Motion of The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL, the following Amendments made:—In page 8, line 32, leave out ("the county court may appoint") and insert ("where the appointment of"); line 33, after ("woman") insert ("is required"), and after ("Act") insert ("the county court may make such appointment"); line 35, leave out ("a married woman") and insert ("a woman married before the commencement of the Married Women's Property Act, 1882"), and after ("use") insert ("to land her title to which accrued before such commencement as aforesaid); line 38, leave out ("married women") and insert ("woman married 43 before the commencement of the Married Women's Property Act, 1882"); and in line 39, after ("Act") insert ("in respect of land her title to which accrued before such commencement as aforesaid").

§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 26 (Provision in case of trustee).

§ On the Motion of The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL, Clause transposed to follow Clause 30.

§ Clause agreed to.

§ Clauses 27 and 28 severally agreed to.

§ Charge for Tenants' Compensation.

§ Clause 29 (Power for landlord on paying compensation to obtain charge).

§ On the Motion of The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL, the following Amendment made:—In page 10, line 12, leave out ("section four of") and insert as separate paragraph at end of the clause:— ("The estate or interest of any landlord holding for an estate or interest determinable or liable to forfeiture by reason of his creating or suffering any charge thereon shall not be determined or forfeited by reason of his obtaining a charge under this Act, anything in any deed, will, or other instrument to the contrary thereof notwithstanding.")

§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clauses 30 and 31 severally agreed to.

§ Notice to Quit.

§ Clause 32 agreed to.

§ Fixtures.

§ Clause 33 (Tenants' property in fixtures, machinery, &c.)

§ On the Motion of The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL, the following Amendment made:—In page 11, line 21, leave out ("buildings") and insert ("building.")

§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.

§ Crown and Duchy Lands.

§ Clauses 34 to 36, inclusive, severally agreed to.

§ Ecclesiastical and Charity Lands.

§ Clause 37 agreed to.

§ Clause 38 (Landlord, incumbent of benefice).

§ On the Motion of The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL, the following 44 Amendment made:—In page 14, line 1, after ("writing") insert— ("Of the patron of the benefice, that is, the person, officer, or authority who, in case the benefice were vacant, would be entitled to present thereto, or").

§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 39 (Landlord, charity trustee).

§ On the Motion of The Marquess of SALISBURY, the following Amendment made:—In page 14, line 18, after "landlord") insert ("in respect of charging the land.")

§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.

§ Resumption for Improvements.

§ On the Motion of The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL, Reading amended' by the addition of the words ("and Miscellaneous.")

§ Clause 40 (Resumption of possession for cottages, &c.)

§ LORD EGERTON OF TATTON moved, as an Amendment, to omit the two last paragraphs of the clause, which provide, first, that where a tenant got notice from his landlord of a resumption of part of his holding, he should be entitled to claim a proportionate reduction of rent; and, second, that the tenant might, if he pleased, treat the notice of resumption as a ground for giving up his holding.

§ Amendment moved, in page 15, line 5, to leave out from ("holding") to the end of the Clause.—(The Lord Egerton of Tatton.)

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON
opposed the Amendment.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
said, he did not like the clause. It was a source of disadvantage to the landlord, and he should prefer to see it struck out of the Bill.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, the clause was a direct privilege to the landlord, instead of being any disadvantage to him.

§ Amendment negatived.

§ Clause agreed to.

§ Clauses 41 and 42 severally agreed to.